mcp-abap-adt

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads data (implying a read-only operation) and returns parsed JSON, but it does not mention behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the dump ID must be valid or accessible. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: action, resource, identifier, and return format. There is no wasted language, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what the JSON payload contains would be beneficial for completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'view' modes further or provide examples of the JSON payload). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Read'), resource ('a specific ABAP runtime dump'), and identifier ('by dump ID'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'RuntimeListDumps' (which lists dumps) and 'RuntimeAnalyzeDump' (which analyzes dumps). It also specifies the return format ('parsed JSON payload'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have a specific dump ID to retrieve, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'RuntimeListDumps' (for listing) or 'RuntimeAnalyzeDump' (for analysis). It provides some context by mentioning the dump ID requirement, but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.